Skip to main content
  • Anterior Versus Lateral Circumferential Lumbar Arthrodesis: Outcomes from a Prospective Multi-Center Study

    Final Number:
    1301

    Authors:
    Kee Kim MD; Ryan Peter Denhaese MD, MS; Clint Hill; Brandon Strenge; Alex De Moura MD; Peter G Passias MD; Paul M. Arnold MD; Ripul R. Panchal DO; Chris M Ferry BS MS; Brieta Bejin; Kim Martin; Sarah Martineck

    Study Design:
    Clinical Trial

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2016 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Lumbar interbody fusion via lateral access (LLIF) has received considerable attention as a less invasive alternative to traditional anterior access (ALIF). However, no studies exist prospectively evaluating the two techniques in patients undergoing circumferential fusion. This study compared short-to-midterm follow-up outcomes of subjects who received intervertebral arthrodesis via a lateral or anterior approach supplemented with posterior fixation.

    Methods: This was a prospective multi-center (11 investigators) study of 103 subjects receiving single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental interspinous process fixation (ISPF) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease +/- spondylolisthesis. The interbody approach was per investigator institutional standard-of-care (ALIF=46; LLIF=57). Subjects were randomized 2:1, ISPF to PSF, for the posterior construct. The PSF (MIS or open; unilateral or bilateral) was performed at the investigator’s discretion. Intraoperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24mo. were collected and stratified by circumferential construct type. Note: Outcomes through 12mo are reported here; 24mo outcomes to be available at time of presentation. Comparative analysis was performed using a linear mixed model (p<0.05).

    Results: Sex, age, and BMI were not significantly associated with any outcome. With respect to mean ODI change from baseline, the only significant difference was between LLIF+ISPF and ALIF+ISPF cohorts at 6 weeks, with LLIF subjects demonstrating a significantly greater decrease (p=0.02). No other statistically significant differences were observed between the respective cohorts for ODI change, change in SF-36 scores (mental and physical), and change in ZCQ scores (physical, symptom, and satisfaction) across all observed timepoints. Complication profiles were comparable between cohorts; no incidence of symptomatic cage migration or subsidence was observed.

    Conclusions: At 1-year, patient-reported outcome scores demonstrated significant pain reduction and satisfaction with all circumferential constructs; LLIF+ISPF performed most advantageously in the early post-op period.

    Patient Care: This prospective study provides patient outcomes to facilitate the decision-making process in regards to an appropriate surgical approach for circumferential fusion for degenerative lumbar spine.

    Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to discuss/identify… 1) How outcome trends compare across multiple circumferential constructs 2) Patient demographics/pathologies for which adjunctive posterior fixation may be advantageus with LLIF or ALIF 3) Potential limitations associated with circumferential LLIF and ALIF

    References:

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy